Archive
Who is Behind Wikileaks?
Posted on February 14, 2012 by Marivel Guzman
Who is Behind Wikileaks?
First Published in Global Research Center for Research on globalizationGlobal Research, December 13, 2010
“World bankers, by pulling a few simple levers that control the flow of money, can make or break entire economies. By controlling press releases of economic strategies that shape national trends, the power elite are able to not only tighten their stranglehold on this nation’s economic structure, but can extend that control world wide. Those possessing such power would logically want to remain in the background, invisible to the average citizen.” (Aldous Huxley)
Wikleaks is upheld as a breakthrough in the battle against media disinformation and the lies of the US government.
Unquestionably, the released documents constitute an important and valuable data bank. The documents have been used by critical researchers since the outset of the Wikileaks project. Wikileaks earlier revelations have focussed on US war crimes in Afghanistan (July 2010) as well as issues pertaining to civil liberties and the “militarization of the Homeland” (see Tom Burghardt, Militarizing the “Homeland” in Response to the Economic and Political Crisis, Global Research, October 11, 2008)
In October 2010, WikiLeaks was reported to have released some 400,000 classified Iraq war documents, covering events from 2004 to 2009 (Tom Burghardt, The WikiLeaks Release: U.S. Complicity and Cover-Up of Iraq Torture Exposed, Global Research, October 24, 2010). These revelations contained in the Wikileaks Iraq War Logs provide “further evidence of the Pentagon’s role in the systematic torture of Iraqi citizens by the U.S.-installed post-Saddam regime.” (Ibid)
Progressive organizations have praised the Wikileaks endeavor.
Our own website Global Research has provided extensive coverage of the Wikileaks project.
The leaks are heralded as an immeasurable victory against corporate media censorship.
But there is more than meets the eye.
Even prior to the launching of the project, the mainstream media had contacted Wikileaks.
There are also reports from published email exchanges (unconfirmed) that Wikileaks had, at the outset of the project in January 2007, contacted and sought the advice of Freedom House. This included an invitation to Freedom House (FH) to participate in the Wikileaks advisory board:
“We are looking for one or two initial advisory board member from FH who may advise on the following:
1. the needs of FH as consumer of leaks exposing business and political corruption 2. the needs for sources of leaks as experienced by FH 3. FH recommendations for other advisory board members 4. general advice on funding, coallition [sic] building and decentralised operations and political framing” (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).There is no evidence of FH followup support to the Wikileaks project. Freedom House is a Washington based “watchdog organization that supports the expansion of freedom around the world”. It is chaired by William H. Taft IV who was legal adviser to the State Department under G. W. Bush and Deputy Secretary of Defense under the Reagan administration.
Wikileaks had also entered into negotiations with several corporate foundations with a view to securing funding. (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007):
The linchpin of WikiLeaks’s financial network is Germany’s Wau Holland Foundation. … “We’re registered as a library in Australia, we’re registered as a foundation in France, we’re registered as a newspaper in Sweden,” Mr. Assange said. WikiLeaks has two tax-exempt charitable organizations in the U.S., known as 501C3s, that “act as a front” for the website, he said. He declined to give their names, saying they could “lose some of their grant money because of political sensitivities.” Mr. Assange said WikiLeaks gets about half its money from modest donations processed by its website, and the other half from “personal contacts,” including “people with some millions who approach us….” (WikiLeaks Keeps Funding Secret, WSJ.com, August 23, 2010)
Acquiring covert funding from intelligence agencies was, according to the email exchanges, also contemplated. (See Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007)
At the outset in early 2007, Wikileaks acknowledged that the project had been “founded by Chinese dissidents, mathematicians and startup company technologists, from the US, Taiwan, Europe, Australia and South Africa…. [Its advisory board] includes representatives from expat Russian and Tibetan refugee communities, reporters, a former US intelligence analyst and cryptographers.” (Wikileaks Leak email exchanges, January 2007).
Wikileaks formulated its mandate on its website as follows: “[Wikileaks will be] an uncensorable version of Wikipedia for untraceable mass document leaking and analysis. Our primary interests are oppressive regimes in Asia, the former Soviet bloc, Sub-Saharan Africa and the Middle East, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the west who wish to reveal unethical behavior in their own governments and corporations,” CBC News – Website wants to take whistleblowing online, January 11, 2007, emphasis added).
This mandate was confirmed by Julian Assange in a June 2010 interview in The New Yorker:
“Our primary targets are those highly oppressive regimes in China, Russia and Central Eurasia, but we also expect to be of assistance to those in the West who wish to reveal illegal or immoral behavior in their own governments and corporations. (quoted in WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 7, 2010, emphasis added)
Assange also intimated that “exposing secrets” “could potentially bring down many administrations that rely on concealing reality—including the US administration.” (Ibid)
From the outset, Wikileaks’ geopolitical focus on “oppressive regimes” in Eurasia and the Middle East was “appealing” to America’s elites, i.e. it seemingly matched stated US foreign policy objectives. Moreover, the composition of the Wikileaks team (which included Chinese dissidents), not to mention the methodology of “exposing secrets” of foreign governments, were in tune with the practices of US covert operations geared towards triggering “regime change” and fostering “color revolutions” in different parts of the World.
The Role of the Corporate Media: The Central Role of the New York Times
Wikileaks is not a typical alternative media initiative. The New York Times, the Guardian and Der Spiegel are directly involved in the editing and selection of leaked documents. The London Economist has also played an important role.
While the project and its editor Julian Assange reveal a commitment and concern for truth in media, the recent Wikileaks releases of embassy cables have been carefully “redacted” by the mainstream media in liaison with the US government. (See Interview with David E. Sanger, Fresh Air, PBS, December 8, 2010)
This collaboration between Wikileaks and selected mainstream media is not fortuitous; it was part of an agreement between several major US and European newspapers and Wikileaks’ editor Julian Assange.
The important question is who controls and oversees the selection, distribution and editing of released documents to the broader public?
What US foreign policy objectives are being served through this redacting process?
Is Wikileaks part of an awakening of public opinion, of a battle against the lies and fabrications which appear daily in the print media and on network TV?
If so, how can this battle against media disinformation be waged with the participation and collaboration of the corporate architects of media disinformation?
Wikileaks has enlisted the architects of media disinformation to fight media disinformation: An incongruous and self-defeating procedure.
America’s corporate media and more specifically The New York Times are an integral part of the economic establishment, with links to Wall Street, the Washington think tanks and the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
Moreover, the US corporate media has developed a longstanding relationship to the US intelligence apparatus, going back to “Operation Mocking Bird”, an initiative of the CIA’s Office of Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s.
Even before the Wikileaks project got off the ground, the mainstream media was implicated. A role was defined and agreed upon for the corporate media not only in the release, but also in the selection and editing of the leaks.
In a bitter irony, the “professional media”, to use Julian Assange’s words in an interview with The Economist, have been partners in the Wikileaks project from the outset.Moreover, key journalists with links to the US foreign policy-national security intelligence establishment have worked closely with Wikileaks, in the distribution and dissemination of the leaked documents. I
n a bitter irony, Wikileaks partner The New York Times, which has consistently promoted media disinformation is now being accused of conspiracy. For what? For revealing the truth? Or for manipulating the truth? In the words of Senator Joseph L. Lieberman:
“I certainly believe that WikiLleaks has violated the Espionage Act, but then what about the news organizations — including The Times — that accepted it and distributed it?” Mr. Lieberman said, adding: “To me, The New York Times has committed at least an act of bad citizenship, and whether they have committed a crime, I think that bears a very intensive inquiry by the Justice Department.”
(WikiLeaks Prosecution Studied by Justice Department – NYTimes.com, December 7, 2010)
This “redacting” role of The New York Times is candidly acknowledged by David E Sanger, Chief Washington correspondent of the NYT:
“We went through [the cables] so carefully to try to redact material that we thought could be damaging to individuals or undercut ongoing operations. And we even took the very unusual step of showing the 100 cables or so that we were writing from to the U.S. government and asking them if they had additional redactions to suggest.”
(See PBS Interview; The Redacting and Selection of Wikileaks documents by the Corporate Media, PBS interview on “Fresh Air” with Terry Gross: December 8, 2010, emphasis added).
Yet Sanger also says later in the interview: “It is the responsibility of American journalism, back to the founding of this country, to get out and try to grapple with the hardest issues of the day and to do it independently of the government.” (ibid) “Do it independently of the government” while at the same time “asking them [the US government] if they had additional redactions to suggest”?
David E. Sanger cannot be described as a model independent journalist. He is member of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) and the Aspen Institute’s Strategy Group which regroups the likes of Madeleine K. Albright, Condoleeza Rice, former Defense Secretary William Perry, former CIA head John Deutch, the president of the World Bank, Robert. B. Zoellick and Philip Zelikow, former executive director of the 9/11 Commission, among other prominent establishment figures.
(See also F. William Engdahl, Wikileaks: A Big Dangerous US Government Con Job, Global Research, December 10, 2010). It is worth noting that several American journalists, members of the Council on Foreign Relations have interviewed Wikileaks, including Time Magazine’s Richard Stengel (November 30, 2010) and The New Yorker’s Raffi Khatchadurian.
(WikiLeaks and Julian Paul Assange : The New Yorker, June 11, 2007) Historically, The New York Times has served the interests of the Rockefeller family in the context of a longstanding relationship.
The current New York Times chairman Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is a member of the Council on Foreign Relations, son of Arthur Ochs Sulzberger and grandson of Arthur Hays Sulzberger who served as a Trustee for the Rockefeller Foundation.
Ethan Bronner, deputy foreign editor of The New York Times as well as Thomas Friedman among others are also members of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR).
(Membership Roster – Council on Foreign Relations)
In turn, the Rockefellers have an important stake as shareholders of several US corporate media.
The Embassy and State Department Cables It should come as no surprise that David E. Sanger and his colleagues at the NYT centered their attention on a highly “selective” dissemination of the Wikileaks cables, focussing on areas which would support US foreign policy interests:
Iran’s nuclear program, North Korea, Saudi Arabia and Pakistan’s support of Al Qaeda, China’s relations with North Korea, etc.
These releases were then used as source material in NYT articles and commentary.
The Embassy and State Department cables released by Wikileaks were redacted and filtered.
They were used for propaganda purposes. They do not constitute a complete and continuous set of memoranda. From a selected list of cables, the leaks are being used to justify a foreign policy agenda.
A case in point is Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, which is the object of numerous State Department memos, as well as Saudi Arabia’s support of Islamic terrorism.
Iran’s Nuclear Program The leaked cables are used to feed the disinformation campaign concerning Iran’s Weapons of Mass Destruction. While the leaked cables are heralded as “evidence” that Iran constitutes a threat, the lies and fabrications of the corporate media concerning Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program are not mentioned, nor is there any mention of them in the leaked cables.
The leaks, once they are funnelled into the corporate news chain, edited and redacted by the New York Times, indelibly serve the broader interests of US foreign policy, including US-NATO-Israel war preparations directed against Iran.
With regard to “leaked intelligence” and the coverage of Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons program, David E. Sanger has played a crucial role. In November 2005, The New York Times published a report co-authored by David E. Sanger and William J. Broad entitled “Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran’s Nuclear Aims”.
The article refers to mysterious documents on a stolen Iranian laptop computer which included “a series of drawings of a missile re-entry vehicle” which allegedly could accommodate an Iranian produced nuclear weapon:
“In mid-July, senior American intelligence officials called the leaders of the international atomic inspection agency to the top of a skyscraper overlooking the Danube in Vienna and unveiled the contents of what they said was a stolen Iranian laptop computer. The Americans flashed on a screen and spread over a conference table selections from more than a thousand pages of Iranian computer simulations and accounts of experiments, saying they showed a long effort to design a nuclear warhead, according to a half-dozen European and American participants in the meeting. The documents, the Americans acknowledged from the start, do not prove that Iran has an atomic bomb. They presented them as the strongest evidence yet that, despite Iran’s insistence that its nuclear program is peaceful, the country is trying to develop a compact warhead to fit atop its Shahab missile, which can reach Israel and other countries in the Middle East.”(William J. Broad and David E. Sanger Relying on Computer, U.S. Seeks to Prove Iran’s Nuclear Aims – New York Times, November 13, 2005, emphasis added) These “secret documents” were subsequently submitted by the US State Department to the International Atomic Energy Agency IAEA, with a view to demonstrating that Iran was developing a nuclear weapons program. They were also used as a pretext to enforce the economic sanctions regime directed against Iran, adopted by the UN Security Council. While their authenticity has been questioned, a recent article by investigative reporter Gareth Porter confirms unequivocally that the mysterious laptop documents are fake. (See Gareth Porter, Exclusive Report: Evidence of Iran Nuclear Weapons Program May Be Fraudulent, Global Research, November 18, 2010). The drawings contained in the documents leaked by William J. Broad and David E. Sanger do not pertain to the Shahab missile but to an obsolete North Korean missile system which was decommissioned by Iran in the mid-1990s. The drawings presented by US State Department officials pertained to the “Wrong Missile Warhead”: In July 2005, … Robert Joseph, US undersecretary of state for arms control and international security, made a formal presentation on the purported Iranian nuclear weapons program documents to the agency’s leading officials in Vienna. Joseph flashed excerpts from the documents on the screen, giving special attention to the series of technical drawings or “schematics” showing 18 different ways of fitting an unidentified payload into the re-entry vehicle or “warhead” of Iran’s medium-range ballistic missile, the Shahab-3. When IAEA analysts were allowed to study the documents, however, they discovered that those schematics were based on a re-entry vehicle that the analysts knew had already been abandoned by the Iranian military in favor of a new, improved design. The warhead shown in the schematics had the familiar “dunce cap” shape of the original North Korean No Dong missile, which Iran had acquired in the mid-1990s. … The laptop documents had depicted the wrong re-entry vehicle being redesigned. … (Gareth Porter, op cit, emphasis added) David E, Sanger, who worked diligently with Wikileaks under the banner of truth and transparency was also instrumental in the New York Times “leak” of what Gareth Porter describes as fake intelligence. (Ibid) While this issue of fake intelligence received virtually no media coverage, it invalidates outright Washington’s assertions regarding Iran’s alleged nuclear weapons. It also questions the legitimacy of the UN Security Council Sancions regime directed against Iran. Moreover, in a bitter irony, the selective redacting of the Wikileaks embassy cables by the NYT has usefully served not only to dismiss the central issue of fake intelligence but also to reinforce, through media disinformation, Washington’s claim that Iran is developing nuclear weapons. A case in point is a November 2010 article co-authored by David E. Sanger, which quotes the Wikileaks cables as a source: “Iran obtained 19 of the missiles from North Korea, according to a [Wikileaks] cable dated Feb. 24 of this year…. (WikiLeaks Archive — Iran Armed by North Korea – NYTimes.com, November 28, 2010). These missiles are said to have the “capacity to strike at capitals in Western Europe or easily reach Moscow, and American officials warned that their advanced propulsion could speed Iran’s development of intercontinental ballistic missiles.” (Ibid, emphasis added). Wikileaks, Iran and the Arab World The released wikileaks cables have also being used to create divisions between Iran on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf States on the other: “After WikiLeaks claimed that certain Arab states are concerned about Iran’s nuclear program and have urged the U.S. to take [military] action to contain Iran, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton took advantage of the issue and said that the released cables showed U.S. concerns regarding Iran’s nuclear program are shared by the international community.” Tehran Times : WikiLeaks promoting Iranophobia, December 5, 2010) The Western media has jumped on this opportunity and has quoted the State Department memoranda released by Wikleaks with a view to upholding Iran as a threat to global security as well as fostering divisions between Iran and the Arab world. “The Global War on Terrorism” The leaks quoted by the Western media reveal the support of the Gulf States and Saudi Arabia to several Islamic terrorist organizations, a fact which is known and amply documented. What the reports fail to mention, however, which is crucial in an understanding of the “Global War on Terrorism”, is that US intelligence historically has channelled its support to terrorist organizations via Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. (See Michel Chossudovsky, America’s “War on Terrorism”, Global Research, Montreal, 2005). These are US sponsored covert intelligence operations using Saudi and Pakistani intelligence as intermediaries. In this regard, the use of the Wikleaks documents by the media tends to sustain the illusion that the CIA has nothing to do with the terror network and that Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are “providing the lion’s share of funding” to Al Qaeda, the Taliban, Lashkar-e-Taiba, among others, when in fact this financing is undertaken in liaison and consultation with their US intelligence counterparts: “The information came to light in the latest round of documents released Sunday by Wikileaks. In their communiques to the State Department, U.S. embassies in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states describe a situation in which wealthy private donors, often openly, lavishly support the same groups against whom Saudi Arabia claims to be fighting.” ( Wikileaks: Saudis, Gulf States Big Funders of Terror Groups – Defense/Middle East – Israel News – Israel National News) Similarly, with regard to Pakistan: The cables, obtained by WikiLeaks and made available to a number of news organizations, make it clear that underneath public reassurances lie deep clashes [between the U.S. and Pakistan] over strategic goals on issues like Pakistan’s support for the Afghan Taliban and tolerance of Al Qaeda,…” (Wary Dance With Pakistan in Nuclear World, The New York Times December 1, 2010) Reports of this nature serve to provide legitimacy to US drone attacks against alleged terrorist targets inside Pakistan. The corporate media’s use and interpretation of the Wikileaks cables serves to uphold two related myths: 1) Iran has nuclear weapons program and constitutes a threat to global security. 2) Saudi Arabia and Pakistan are state sponsors of Al Qaeda. They are financing Islamic terrorist organizations which are intent upon attacking the US and its NATO allies. The CIA and the Corporate Media The CIA’s relationship to the US media is amply documented. The New York Times continues to entertain a close relationship not only with US intelligence, but also with the Pentagon and more recently with the Department of Homeland Security. “Operation Mocking Bird” was an initiative of the CIA’s Office of Special Projects (OSP), established in the early 1950s. Its objective was to exert influence on both the US as well as the foreign media. From the 1950s, members of the US media were routinely enlisted by the CIA. The inner workings of the CIA’s relationship to the US media are described in Carl Bernstein’s 1977 article in Rolling Stone entitled The CIA and the Media: “[M]ore than 400 American journalists who [had] secretly carried out assignments for the Central Intelligence Agency, according to documents on file at CIA headquarters. [1950-1977]Some of these journalists’ relationships with the Agency were tacit; some were explicit. … Reporters shared their notebooks with the CIA. Editors shared their staffs. Some of the journalists were Pulitzer Prize winners,… Most were less exalted: foreign correspondents who found that their association with the Agency helped their work….; Among the executives who lent their cooperation to the Agency were Williarn Paley of the Columbia Broadcasting System, Henry Luce of Tirne Inc., Arthur Hays Sulzberger of the New York Times, Barry Bingham Sr. of the LouisviIle Courier‑Journal, and James Copley of the Copley News Service. Other organizations which cooperated with the CIA include the American Broadcasting Company, the National Broadcasting Company, the Associated Press, United Press International, Reuters, Hearst Newspapers, Scripps‑Howard, Newsweek magazine, the Mutual Broadcasting System, the Miami Herald and the old Saturday Evening Post and New York Herald‑Tribune. (The CIA and the Media by Carl Bernstein) Bernstein suggests, in this regard, that “the CIA’s use of the American news media has been much more extensive than Agency officials have acknowledged publicly or in closed sessions with members of Congress” (Ibid). In recent years, the CIA’s relationship to the media has become increasingly complex and sophisticated. We are dealing with a mammoth propaganda network involving a number of agencies of government. Media disinformation has become institutionalized. The lies and fabrications have become increasingly blatant when compared to the 1970s. The US media has become the mouthpiece of US foreign policy. Disinformation is routinely “planted” by CIA operatives in the newsroom of major dailies, magazines and TV channels: “A relatively few well-connected correspondents provide the scoops, that get the coverage in the relatively few mainstream news sources, where the parameters of debate are set and the “official reality” is consecrated for the bottom feeders in the news chain.”(Chaim Kupferberg, The Propaganda Preparation of 9/11, Global Research, September 19, 2002). Since 2001, the US media has assumed a new role in sustaining the “Global War on Terrorism” (GWOT) and camouflaging US sponsored war crimes. In the wake of 9/11, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld created the Office of Strategic Influence (OSI), or “Office of Disinformation” as it was labeled by its critics: “The Department of Defense said they needed to do this, and they were going to actually plant stories that were false in foreign countries — as an effort to influence public opinion across the world.'” (Interview with Steve Adubato, Fox News, 26 December 2002, see also Michel Chossudovsky, War Propaganda, Global Research, January 3, 2003). Today’s corporate media is an instrument of war propaganda, which begs the question: why would the NYT all of a sudden promote transparency and truth in media, by assisting Wikileaks in “spreading the word”; and that people around the World would not pause for one moment and question the basis of this incongruous relationship. On the surface, nothing proves that Wikileaks is a CIA covert operation. However, given the corporate media’s cohesive and structured relationship to US intelligence, not to mention the links of individual journalists to the military-national security establishment, the issue of a CIA sponsored PsyOp must necessarily be addressed. Wikileaks Social and Corporate Entourage Wikileaks and The Economist have also entered into what seems to be a contradictory relationship. Wikileaks founder and editor Julian Assange was granted in 2008 The Economist’s New Media Award. The Economist has a close relationship to Britain’s financial elites. It is an establishment news outlet, which has, on balance, supported Britain’s involvement in the Iraq war. The Economist’s Editor-in-Chief, John Micklethwait was a participant in the June 2010 Bilderberg conference. The Economist also bears the stamp of the Rothschild family. Sir Evelyn Robert Adrian de Rothschild was chairman of The Economist from 1972 to 1989. His wife Lynn Forester de Rothschild currently sits on The Economist’s board. The Rothschild family also has a sizeable shareholder interest in The Economist. Former Editor of The Economist (1974-86), Andrew Stephen Bower Knight is currently Chairman of the J. Rothschild Capital Management Fund. He is also reported to have been member of the Steering Group (1986) of the Bilderberg. The broader question is why would Julian Assange receive the support from Britain’s foremost establishment news outfit which has consistently been involved in media disinformation? Are we not dealing with a case of “manufactured dissent”, whereby the process of supporting and rewarding Wikileaks for its endeavors, becomes a means of controlling and manipulating the Wikileaks project, while at the same time embedding it into the mainstream media. It is also worth mentioning another important link. Julian Assange’s lawyer Mark Stephens of Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), a major London elite law firm, happens to be the legal adviser to the Rothschild Waddesdon Trust. While this in itself does prove anything, it should nonetheless be examined in the broader context of Wikileaks’ social and corporate entourage: the NYT, the CFR, The Economist, Time Magazine, Forbes, Finers Stephens Innocent (FSI), etc. Manufacturing Dissent Wikileaks has the essential features of a process of “manufactured dissent”. It seeks to expose government lies. It has released important information on US war crimes. But once the project becomes embedded in the mould of mainstream journalism, it is used as an instrument of media disinformation: “It is in the interest of the corporate elites to accept dissent and protest as a feature of the system inasmuch as they do not threaten the established social order. The purpose is not to repress dissent, but, on the contrary, to shape and mould the protest movement, to set the outer limits of dissent. To maintain their legitimacy, the economic elites favor limited and controlled forms of opposition… To be effective, however, the process of “manufacturing dissent” must be carefully regulated and monitored by those who are the object of the protest movement ” (See Michel Chossudovsky, “Manufacturing Dissent”: the Anti-globalization Movement is Funded by the Corporate Elites, September 2010) What this examination of the Wikileaks project also suggests is that the mechanics of New World Order propaganda, particularly with regard to its military agenda, has become increasingly sophisticated. It no longer relies on the outright suppression of the facts regarding US-NATO war crimes. Nor does it require that the reputation of government officials at the highest levels, including the Secretary of State, be protected. New World Order politicians are in a sense “disposable”. They can be replaced. What must be protected and sustained are the interests of the economic elites, which control the political apparatus from behind the scenes. In the case of Wikileaks, the facts are contained in a data bank; many of those facts, particularly those pertaining to foreign governments serve US foreign policy interests. Other facts tend, on the other hand to discredit the US administration. With regard to financial information, the release of data pertaining to a particular bank instigated via Wikileaks by a rival financial institution, could potentially be used to trigger the collapse or bankrutpcy of the targeted financial institution. All the Wiki-facts are selectively redacted, they are then “analyzed” and interpreted by a media which serves the economic elites. While the numerous pieces of information contained in the Wikileaks data bank are accessible, the broader public will not normally take the trouble to consult and scan through the Wikileaks data bank. The public will read the redacted selections and interpretations presented in major news outlets. A partial and biased picture is presented. The redacted version is accepted by public opinion because it is based on what is heralded as a “reliable source”, when in fact what is presented in the pages of major newspapers and on network TV is a carefully crafted and convoluted distortion of the truth. Limited forms of critical debate and “transparency” are tolerated while also enforcing broad public acceptance of the basic premises of US foreign policy, including its “Global War on Terrorism”. With regard to a large segment of the US antiwar movement, this strategy seems to have succeeded: “We are against war but we support the ‘war on terrorism'”. What this means is that truth in media can only be reached by dismantling the propaganda apparatus, –i.e. breaking the legitimacy of the corporate media which sustains the broad interests of the economic elites as well America’s global military design. In turn, we must ensure that the campaign against Wikileaks in the U.S., using the 1917 Espionage Act, will not be utilized as a means to wage a campaign to control the internet. In this regard, we should also stand firm in preventing the prosecution of Julian Assange in the US. Note: Minor changes were added to this article on December 14 and 26, 2010
The Global Economic Crisis Michel Chossudovsky Andrew G. Marshall (editors) This book can be ordered directly from Global Research Global Research Articles by Michel Chossudovsky Bookmark and Share Subscribe to the Global Research E-Newsletter Shop Global Research ! Please support Global Research Global Research relies on the financial support of its readers. Your endorsement is greatly appreciated Disclaimer:
The contents of this article are of sole responsibility of the author(s).
The Centre for Research on Globalization will not be responsible for any inaccurate or incorrect in this article.
The Center of Research on Globalization grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author’s copyright must be displayed.
For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: publications@globalresearch.ca http://www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner.
We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues.
The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: media@globalresearch.ca
Copyright © Michel Chossudovsky, Global Research, 2010
Those Who Make Peaceful Revolution Impossible, Make Violent Revolution Inevitable
These men do not make the mistakes, as they themselves are part of the same programs, they are disposable, usable and trash-able when they finish their mission.
We need to be vigilant of any actions that will come in the next few months, as the global awareness movement is taken new levels and so the Globalist Agenda. But as always We The People have the upper hand if we stay united.
There is nothing stronger than a United Family and in these volatile days we the “Human Family” needs to stay more united than ever to win the battle of the classes that has been waged against us.
And I m not talking in any socialist agenda or political agenda of any kind I m talking of the awareness that it is taking place in every block of society.
The main event during the period in which Murdoch asserted that the Arabs were trying to “overrun” Israel was the 1967 war. Zionism’s story of it, which the mainstream media still peddles to this day, is that Israel went to war either because the Arabs attacked first or were intending to attack. Both, the either and the or, are Zionist propaganda nonsense. It was a war of Israeli aggression. Opinion-Maker
“Muslims converts ” fueling the Muslim rage against the Jews. Cartoons enraging the Muslim religious faith.
The “Self Hater Jews” new term and its promoters working wonders in the social networks with their cheap hasbaras that can be smell miles away.
The invented wars that terrorized, murdered and put the last nail in the coffin of the middle east hard worked stability that devastated the region and inserted military opps all over the middle east.
All the Middle East Conflict Israel/Palestine used as convenience to keep the rage, the energies exhausted, to keep the people taking sides, while they are waging more wars, destroying our Earth, starving the world, wasting our natural resources. They are making us angry, they are steering our last fiber of patience, they are brewing the revolution that will put end to the American empire, they are making impossible the peaceful revolution, where we change the old world order for a new world order, where we all have fair share of our world, where we all enjoy Peace.
Palestinians in Israel Jails Since Before Oslo
Posted On October 14, 2011 Akashma Online News
By Marivel Guzman
If Israel clams that the Occupied Territories are war anexations (which by International law it’s illegal), they should at all the times respect the Geneva Convention on the rights of the Non combatants and on the prisoners that should be considered political prisoners of war.
The US State Department shows in its report of 2003 that the rights of the prisoners were not respected at all and that Some security prisoners were sentenced on the basis of coerced confessions by both themselves and others.
Laws and administrative regulations prohibit the physical abuse of detainees. During the year there were credible reports that there was an increase in the number of allegations that security forces tortured detainees, including using methods prohibited by a 1999 High Court decision.
The total number of Palestinian prisoners held by Israel, which was 1,854 at the beginning of the year (2003), reached 4,672 by year’s end. The Government stated that it held 1,007 persons from Gaza and the West Bank, and no Israeli Arabs in administrative detention (without charge or trial) at year’s end. The Government detained approximately 10,000 prisoners at some point during the year
October 2011 the situation have worsen for Palestinians detainees and prisoners.
More than 750,000 Palestinians have been detained by IOF in Palestine.
The Geneva Convention defines the rights and protections of non-combatants, thus:
| “ | Protected persons are entitled, in all circumstances, to respect for their persons, their honour, their family rights, their religious convictions and practices, and their manners and customs. They shall, at all times, be humanely treated, and shall be protected, especially against all acts of violence or threats thereof and against insults and public curiosity. Women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution, or any form of indecent assault. Without prejudice to the provisions relating to their state of health, age and sex, all protected persons shall be treated with the same consideration by the Party to the conflict in whose power they are, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, religion or political opinion. However, the Parties to the conflict may take such measures of control and security in regard to protected persons as may be necessary as a result of the war. |
| Mohammed | Salama | Hammad | Abu Khusma |
Jabalya | 3/6/76 |
| Nael | Saleh | Abdullah | Al-Barghouti | Ramallah | 4/4/78 |
| Fakhri | Asfour | Abdullah | Al-Barghouti | Ramallah | 6/23/78 |
| Ekram | Abdul | Aziz | Said | 1948 | 8/2/79 |
| Fuad | Qasim | Arafat | Ar-Razim | Mansour | 1/30/81 |
| Ibrahim | Fadl | Naji | Jaber | al-Quds | 1/8/82 |
| Hassan | Ali | Nimr | Salma | Hebron | 8/8/82 |
| Othman | Ali | Hamdan | Musleh | Ramallah | 10/15/82 |
| Sami | Khalid | Salameh | Yunus | 1948 | 1/5/83 |
| Maher | Abdel | Latif | Qadir Yunus |
1948 | 1/18/83 |
| Salim | Ali | Ibrahim | Al-Kiyal | Gaza | 5/30/83 |
| Karim | Fadel | Yunus | 1948 | 1948 | 5/1/84 |
| Hafiz | Nimr | Muhammad | Qandas | 1948 | 5/15/84 |
| Mohammed | Abdul | Rahim | Said Mansour |
Tulkarm | 1/27/85 |
| Ahmed | Farid | Mohammed | Shehada | al-Quds | 2/16/85 |
| Mohammed | Ibrahim | Mohammed | Nasr | Ramallah | 5/11/85 |
| Rafi’ | Farhood | Mohammed | Karajeh | Ramallah | 5/20/85 |
| Talal | Youssef | Ahmad | Abu | al.-Kabash Hebron |
6/23/85 |
| Ziad | Mahmoud | Mohammed | Ghneimat | Hebron | 6/27/85 |
| Mustafa | Amer | Mohammed | Ghneimat | Hebron | 6/27/85 |
| Othman | Abdullah | Mahmoud | Bani | Hussein Jenin |
7/27/85 |
| Hazza | Mohammed | Hazza | Sadi | Jenin | 7/28/85 |
| Bashir | Suleiman | Ahmed | Al-Maqt | Golan | 8/12/85 |
| Asim | Mahmoud | Ahmed | Wala | Golan | 8/23/85 |
| Sidqi | Suleiman | Ahmed | Al-Maqt | Golan | 8/23/85 |
| Hani | Badawi | Mohammed | Said | Jaber Al-Quds |
9/3/85 |
| Mohammed | Ahmad | Abdel | Hamid | At-Tus Hebron |
10/6/85 |
| Nafez | Ahmed | Talib | Harz | Gaza | 11/25/85 |
| Fayez | Matlou’ | Hamed | Al-Khour | Gaza | 11/29/85 |
| Ghazi | Juma | Mohammed | An-Nims | Gaza | 11/30/85 |
| Mohammad | Musbah | Khalil | Ashour | Ramallah | 2/18/86 |
| Ahmad | Abd | Al-Rahman | Abu Hussein |
Gaza | 2/18/86 |
| Walid | Nimr | Asad | Diqqa | 1948 | 2/25/86 |
| Mohammad | Abdel | Hadi | Hassani | Gaza | 3/4/86 |
| Tawfiq | Ibrahim | Mohammed | AbdallahSalfit | 3/7/86 | |
| Mustafa | Mahmoud | Musa | QrawishSalfit | 3/10/86 | |
| Ibrahim | Nayef | Hamdan | Abumekh | 1948 | 3/24/86 |
| Rushdi | Hamdan | Mohammed | Abu Mekh |
1948 | 3/24/86 |
| Ibrahim | Abd | Ar-Razzaq | Ahmed Dababsa |
1948 | 3/26/86 |
| Ibrahim | Mustafa | Ahmed | Barud | Jabalya | 4/9/86 |
| Ali | Bader | Raghib | Maslamani | al-Quds | 4/27/86 |
| Fawaz | Kazim | Rushdi | Bakhtan | al-Quds | 4/29/86 |
| Khalid | Ahmed | Daoud | Muheisin | al-Quds | 4/30/86 |
| Essam | Salah | Ali | Jandal | al-Quds | 4/30/86 |
| Wasfi | Ahmed | Abdullkadir | Mansour | 1948 | 5/15/86 |
| Alaeddin | Ahmad | Reza | Albazian | al-Quds | 6/20/86 |
| Ahmed | Ali | Hussein | Abu Jaber |
1948 | 7/8/86 |
| Abdul | Latif | Ismail | Ibrahim Shqeir |
Nablus | 7/23/86 |
| Ofer | Mubah | Nufel | Shqeir | Nablus | 7/24/86 |
| Saleh | Mohammed | Youssef | Al-Abd | Ramallah | 8/22/86 |
| Tariq | Mustafa | Daoud | Alhalisy | al-Quds | 10/16/86 |
| Abd | An-Nasser | Daoud | Mustafa Alhalis |
al-Quds | 10/16/86 |
| Ibrahim | Hussein | Ali | Alyan | al-Quds | 10/19/86 |
| Samir | Ibrahim | Mahmoud | Abuna’ma | Ramallah | 10/20/86 |
| Hazem | Mohammed | Sabri | Asilah | al-Quds | 10/21/86 |
| Hamza | Nayef | Hassan | Zayed | Jenin | 11/15/86 |
| Samer | Essam | Salem | Al-Mahroum | Jenin | 11/15/86 |
| Abdel | Rahman | Fadl | Abdel Al-Qiq |
Rafah | 12/18/86 |
| Khalid | Mutawi’ | Muslim | Al-Ja’bri | Rafah | 12/24/86 |
| Ahmed | Abu | Sud | Abdulrazzaq Hanani |
Nablus | 5/23/87 |
| Mueed | Abd | Ar-Rahim Asad |
Abd Al-Samd |
Ṭūlkarm | 6/14/87 |
| Mohammed | Mansour | Abd | al.-Majid Ziyada |
1948 | 9/10/87 |
| Mukhlis | Ahmed | Mohammed | Burghal | 1948 | 9/11/87 |
| Hilal | Mohammed | Ahmed | Jaradat | Jenin | 9/24/87 |
| Omar | Mahmoud | Jaber | al-Ghoul | Gaza | 10/13/87 |
| Mohammed | Mohammed | Shehadeh | Hassan | Gaza | 10/13/87 |
| Mohammed | Adel | Hassan | Daoud | Qalqilya | 12/8/87 |
| Yassin | Mohammed | Yassin | Abu Khadeer |
al-Quds | 12/27/87 |
| Yunus | Youssef | Abdullah | Hussein | 1948 | 12/31/87 |
| Basheer | Abdullah | Kamel | al-Khatib | 1948 | 1/1/88 |
| Khaled | Mohammed | Shafiq | Taha | al-Quds | 1/18/88 |
| Amer | Ahmed | Mahmoud | Al. Qawasma |
Hebron | 1/22/88 |
| Jihad | Ahmed | Mustafa | Abidi | al-Quds | 1/22/88 |
| Nader | Mohammed | Hassan | Al-Ja’ba | Ramallah | 2/3/88 |
| Nasser | Musa | Ahmed Nasser |
Abed Rabbo |
al-Quds | 2/9/88 |
| Rawhi | Jamal | Abdulnabi | Mushtaha | Gaza | 2/13/88 |
| Osama | Sulaiman | Fayyad | Abu Al-Jadyan |
Jabalya | 2/17/88 |
| Jamal | Hammad | Hussein | Abu Saleh |
al-Quds | 2/21/88 |
| Samer | Ibrahim | Wadd | Abusser | al-Quds | 2/22/88 |
| Mahmoud | Salim | Suleiman | Abuharbish Khadeer |
Ramallah | 3/11/88 |
| Yasser | Mahmoud | Mohammed | Al-Khawaja | Rafah | 7/8/88 |
| Hisham | Muhammad | Yunus | Shaath | Gaza | 8/4/88 |
| Thaer | Mohammad | Jamil | Al-Kurd | Jabalya | 8/8/88 |
| Hassan | Mahmoud | Abd Ar-Rahim |
Nufal | Jabalya | 8/9/88 |
| Jihad | Jamil | Mahmoud | Abu Ghaben |
Jabalya | 8/10/88 |
| Mohammed | Ahmed | Mohammed | Jabareen | 1948 | 10/6/88 |
| Mahmoud | Osman | Ibrahim | Jabareen | 1948 | 10/8/88 |
| Aweidah | Mohammed | Suleiman | Klab | Gaza | 10/12/88 |
| Ahmed | Rabah | Ahmed | Amira | al-Quds | 10/25/88 |
| Ahmed | Jibril | Osman | Tkruri | Ramallah | 10/31/88 |
| Jum’a | Ibrahim | Juma | Adam | Ramallah | 10/31/88 |
| Samir | Saleh | Taha | Sarsawi | 19481948 | 11/24/88 |
| Ala | Abdullah | Salim | Amriya | 1948 | 11/24/88 |
| Abd | Ar-Rahman | Rabi’ | Shehab | Jabalya | 12/16/88 |
| Bilal | Ahmed | Youssef | Abu Al-Hussein |
al-Quds | 12/20/88 |
| Osman | Mohammed | Atta | Maragha | al-Quds | 2/15/89 |
| Hani | Mohammed | Awni | Jaber | al-Quds | 2/17/89 |
| Ibrahim | Lutfi | Hilmi | Taqtouq | Nablus | 3/3/89 |
| Samir | Nayif | Abdulghaffar | An-Naishi | Nablus | 3/5/89 |
| Iyad | Ahmed | Mustafa | Abu Hasneh |
Rafah | 3/15/89 |
| Mohammed | Abd | Ar-Rahman | Mohammed Zaqout |
Jabalya | 3/23/89 |
| Nidal | Abd | Ar-Razzaq | Azat Zlum |
Ramallah | 5/3/89 |
| Mohammed | Youssef | Hassan | Sharatha | Jabalya | 5/9/89 |
| Yahya | Ibrahim | Hassan | Sinwar Khan |
Younis | 5/14/89 |
| Tawfiq | Abdullah | Salman | Abu Naim |
Dir Al-Balah | 5/14/89 |
| Hassan | Ahmed | Al-Khaled | Al-Muqadama | Dir Al-Balah | 5/18/89 |
| Emad | Mohammed | Jamil | Shehadeh | Gaza | 6/7/89 |
| Jamal | Issa | Abed | Rabbo Alnouri |
Rafah | 6/13/89 |
| Bilal | Ibrahim | Mustafa | Damrah Salfit |
6/19/89 | |
| Fahim | Ramadan | Sarahna | Ibrahim Salfit |
6/20/89 | |
| Mustafa | Othman | Omar | Al-Hajj Salfit |
6/20/89 | |
| Abdelhadi | Salman | Rafi | Ghneim | Dir Al-Balah | 7/6/89 |
| Mohammed | Mahmoud | Awad | Hamdieh | Gaza | 7/14/89 |
| Nihad | Yusuf | Radwan | Jundiya | Gaza | 7/14/89 |
| Raed | Mohammed | Sharif | al-Saadi | Jenin | 8/28/89 |
| Ahmed | Hussein | Mahmoud | Shukri | Ramallah | 9/9/89 |
| Ayed | Mahmoud | Mohammed | Khalil | Ṭūlkarm | 10/6/89 |
| Majdi | Attia | Suleiman | Ajuli | Ṭūlkarm | 10/17/89 |
| Abdel | Man’am | Othman | Mohammed Ta’ma |
Ṭūlkarm | 10/28/89 |
| Wael | Makeen | Abdallah | Abu Fannuna |
Gaza | 12/12/89 |
| Jamal | Amr | Mohammed | Arqiq | Gaza | 12/22/89 |
| Hassan | Youssef | Mahmoud | Ghafri | Ramallah | 2/3/90 |
| Abdel-Halim | Mahmoud | Hassan | Abdullah | Jabalya | 12/5/90 |
A Letter From A Concerned Citizen: Dear Mr President
AN EMAIL I HAVE RECEIVED, UNFORTUNATELY IT HAS NO SIGNATURE, BUT IS WORTH READING. IT NEEDS NO AUTHENTICATION AND SHOULD BE THE ADDRESS OF EVERY AMERICAN TO THE PRESIDENT OR TO ANY PRESIDENT IN THE WHITE HOUSE.
Dear Mr. President,
I am neither an expert on history nor a political activist; I am just an average American who is gravely concerned about the direction I see my country taking. I know you inherited a snake-pit of problems when you first took the oath just three years ago, but somehow when you said ‘Yes, we can!’ I believed you could find a way to return our country to its basic beliefs in liberty and justice for all.
I grew up being proud to be an American, inspired by Patrick Henry’s heroic words of ‘Give me liberty or give me death’, instilling in me a belief that liberty was indeed worth dying for. My grandfather enlisted in the army in 1914, thinking that his involvement would help make it the war to end all wars. Then just twenty-five years later, my father enlisted in the navy with the belief he was fighting against imperialism and tyranny. I am still proud of my grandfather and father for they left the safety of America to fight for the freedom of others.
Although neither my father’s nor my grandfather’s generations were able to being about the end to war, we as a nation have always been ready to fight for our own freedom as well as that of others. We have always admired any people who fought against the occupation of their nation, regarding the French resistance movement as especially inspirational. It seems the Palestinians who also live under occupation are not regarded as a people who have that same right.
Quite frankly, Mr. President, it appears to me that we no longer believe in justice and freedom for all, but only for those who can either be of financial benefit to us or for those who have the strongest lobby in Washington, D.C. How can we condemn UNESCO (United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization) and threaten to withhold millions of funds from them if they recognize Palestine as a valid member of the UN? Israel never had any problem when it asked for official recognition in the UN even though they were a nation created on land that was already populated by Palestinians. But Palestine, the land that is divided into shards of broken up city states, unable to even control who enters its own cities, its own borders or its own roads, is not seen as worthy of being part of the UN. And why? Because according to Israel, the Palestine Authority refuses to recognize it? I am sorry to tell you this, but they have recognized Israel over and over again. Are we suddenly deaf to anything a Palestinian says and open-eared for anything that comes from an Israeli? Why, might I ask, has Israel not recognized Palestine? Isn’t that a key to establishing a peaceful situation in the Middle East?
Just a quick look at UN Resolution 242 shows that Israel has been thumbing its nose at the UN for well over forty years. The preamble of this resolution makes it perfectly clear about the “inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in the Middle East in which every State in the area can live in security.” Does this not include Palestine or am I missing some tiny print that excludes them and only refers to Israel as having this right?
Let us not forget as well that this resolution also calls for the withdrawal of Israel’s armed forces from territories occupied in the 1967 conflict. Has that happened yet? All I see is the world turning a blind eye to what Israel continues to do, illegally entering into cities like Ramallah and Gaza claiming it is for security reasons. I wonder if we would feel the same if Mexican or Canadian troops violated the sovereignty of our borders with similar claims. I find it odd that Israel is the only nation in the world that is given carte blanche to do so.
I am confused between the America I thought we were, the nation that professes to stand for the rights of all, regardless of their religious beliefs, their color, their creed and the America I have seen over the past few years. I now see us as a 21st century Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde that one moment sends troops to fight for people’s rights and the next moment supports the strong-armed treatment of peaceful protesters when they stand against Israeli occupation.
Are we now a nation that stands like Caesar in the amphitheater of politics that either thumbs up or thumbs down the fate of a people? Is it thumbs up if we can benefit from what they have? Thumbs up if their lobby is so powerful we fear their power? Thumbs down if they are only fighting for freedom and independence? Thumbs down if they are Palestinian?
The people of Palestine need a voice in the United Nations which is an organization that my country fought very hard to establish in 1945. Let us not forget that all the Palestinians are asking for is to be recognized as the very nation the UN in Resolution 181 had tried to establish as far back as 1947. Yes, it was rejected by the Palestinians at that time because it meant giving up what was rightfully theirs in order to provide a safe haven for people who survived the holocaust in Europe. Now that the Palestinians have swallowed their pride, their wounds have scarred over and they are willing to accept that resolution, they are being denied. Have they waited too long? Was there an expiry date on the offer?
Why do we now oppose the recognition of Palestine if we tried to establish it over sixty years ago? What has changed? The people of Palestine lost everything when Israel came into being. They are an occupied people, like the French under the Nazis, but have we decided their resistance is wrong because it against the Israel? It can’t be because of religious differences because Palestinians are Jews, Muslims and Christians… but then you knew that already, right?
Why are we so afraid to stand up to Israel, the country that is the recipient of most of our tax money…the same country that blatantly ignores every UN Resolution concerning the Middle East…the same nation that contrary to UN orders, continues to build settlements and occupy land that is not rightfully theirs…the same country that openly practices state-supported terrorism of a people who, like David, throw stones at the Israeli Goliath who responds with tank fire, gas and bullets…the same country lead by a man who continues to openly insult you and our people? Netanyahu has consistently lied to the world about his intentions. He has done everything in his power to ensure that a Palestinian state is not created. Peace negotiations are nothing more than a cover to gain time to steal more land and water resources from the Palestinians. Mr. President, can you not see this or are you blinded by Israel’s control over whether you get re-elected or not?
Why do we allow ourselves to remain joined at the hip with a Siamese twin that is destroying our very core, our principles of human rights and justice? I am hoping you too can follow in the courageous footsteps of Presidents Eisenhower and Carter who stood up to Israel and said ‘No!’ Be the man who cuts this Gordian Knot and set us free!
Mr. President, do you really think our forefathers would be proud of what we have become? Don’t you think it is time to stand up to tyranny and break free of the chains that are holding us all back from supporting justice and freedom? Until that day, I shall weep for my nation and apologize to our forefathers for what we have become and for what we have done to our great nation.
With hope that you still can, I remain,
A Concerned American Citizen
